The ladder of inference, proposed by Chris Argyris (Senge et. al, 1994) represents how we make assumptions and beliefs that guide our actions and decisions.
We rarely experience an event and make decisions based on objective, observable data. We start there at the bottom of the ladder, but then we begin to climb:
We experience an event with a pool of observable facts or data.
We pick data from the observable facts that align with our existing assumptions, preferences, and other things that we think are important.
Then we assign meanings and come up with stories about the selected data.
We then make new assumptions based on the meanings we just created; this is where the line between fact and story gets blurred.
That leads us to draw conclusions from those assumptions about the event, other people, and the world.
We adopt those conclusions as our new beliefs.
Then, at the top of the ladder, we make decisions and take action according to those beliefs.
Then we create a loop that keeps going because the beliefs and assumptions we created on this ladder will affect the data you select the next time you begin to climb the ladder.
To demonstrate the ladder, I like to use a real-life example that Trevor Maber illustrates in his TED-Ed talk:
You are pulling into a parking spot, you have your signal light on, and someone zooms in ahead of you at the last minute and takes the spot.
The information that you pay attention to is your grip tightening on the wheel, the fact that you had to slam the breaks, your blood pressure rise, the expression on the diver's face as they walk away.
You think about all the rules you abide by "wait your turn," "first come, first served," etc....
You begin to make up stories about this person: "didn't his parents teach him anything?", "what a jerk," "why does he think he is more important than everyone else?", "He definitely must have seen my signal and chose to ignore it"
Then you conclude that this is a heartless, selfish, entitled, inconsiderate person that needs to be taught a lesson and put in their place.
You adjust your beliefs: "this is the last time I give in; if this happens again, I will be the one to win," etc...
Then you take action. You stop behind his car, honk your horn and roll down your window and scream.
The man was apologetic, explaining that his wife called him from inside the mall, saying she was in labor and needed to get to the hospital immediately. After some initial shock, you calm down, wish him luck, and get on with your day.
What happened there is that the other person's ladder short-circuited your beliefs. The learning from this is that we can short-circuit our ladder's all on our own with some practice.
I use this with my clients when they are reacting to their experiences or when I hear them making up stories about others' behavior and intentions. For example, "Suzy was late to the meeting because she disrespects me." That's a sign that there is more to unpack there. It helps to ask at that moment, "what beliefs or assumptions are at play in yourself and others?", "where do they come from?" "Is there missing information or facts that would change how you feel about or interpret this situation?" "What are the stories about these events you are making up?"
An exercise that can be used to "hop off the ladder" is based on the two-column research method developed by Chris Argyris and Donald Schon (Senge, 1994).
The titles I use for the columns are "Facts" and "My Stories about the facts".
Simply being more mindful and aware that everyone has a ladder can go a long way in making less biased decisions.
Senge, P., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Smith, B., & Kleiner, A. (1994). Strategies for working with mental models. The fifth discipline fieldbook (pp. 235-263). New York: Doubleday.
Comments